tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/wwf-7371/articlesWWF – The Conversation2017-12-04T10:19:59Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/854772017-12-04T10:19:59Z2017-12-04T10:19:59ZIllegal wildlife trade is one of the biggest threats to endangered species – and the UK is a key player<p>You might not have heard of a pangolin, but they are widely claimed to be the most <a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/wildlife-watch-most-trafficked-mammal-just-got-help/">illegally trafficked mammal</a> in the world. </p>
<p>With their armoured shell and long noses, pangolins are often called “scaly anteaters” because of their preferred diet. Much like the UK’s native hedgehog, when in danger, pangolins can roll into a ball – exposing only the tough scales for protection</p>
<p>Earlier this year, Thai customs officials <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-pangolins/thailand-seizes-136-smuggled-live-pangolins-idUSKCN1BB1LR">seized</a> 136 live pangolins and 450kg of pangolin scales smuggled into the country from Malaysia. These scales, which were likely destined to be used in <a href="http://pangolinconservation.org/learn-about-pangolins/">traditional Asian medicines</a> are worth around $75,000. </p>
<p>Second to habitat loss, <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/problems/illegal_trade/">illegal trade of wildlife</a> is considered the biggest threat to many endangered species. Although it is controlled by laws created by member countries of the <a href="https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.php">Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species</a>, illegal trade continues. And many species are now being pushed ever closer to extinction to satisfy huge demand for such things as medicines, collectables, pets and clothing.</p>
<h2>Not our problem?</h2>
<p>Earlier this year, the Natural History Museum announced Brent Stirton as its Wildlife Photographer of 2017 for his image “<a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/2017/images/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year/5281/memorial-to-a-species.html">Memorial to a species</a>”, an evocative and distressing image of a slaughtered black rhino bull, horn hacked off by poachers, which was taken in Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Park, South Africa.</p>
<p>But illegal wildlife trade isn’t just something that happens where the animals live – the UK is both an <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/578963/IPOL_IDA(2016)578963_EN.pdf">important transit and destination country</a> for this type of trade. Between 2009 and 2014, the UK Border Force dealt with 257 confiscations, <a href="https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/nearly-3000-seizures-illegal-wildlife-products-made-uk-border-force">seizing nearly 3,000 items</a>, including ivory, rhino horn and tiger products. </p>
<p>The UK government has made a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/281289/london-wildlife-conference-declaration-140213.pdf">clear commitment</a> to support efforts to tackle the illegal wildlife trade. But although there are a few examples of <a href="http://www.nwcu.police.uk/">excellent practice</a> and of more recent <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415690/review-progress-kasane-conf-150317.pdf">initiatives</a> – such as better collaborative work between governments, targeted crackdowns, and awareness campaigns – enforcement remains marginalised and under resourced. </p>
<p><a href="http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/9522/">Relying on enforcement is also problematic</a> as crimes involving wildlife are generally not seen as “serious”, or are not thought of as “real crimes”. And in this way, offenders are rarely identified and prosecuted. Sentencing in the UK, and elsewhere, is also often far too <a href="http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/157301/26440736/1438778423100/traffic_pub_gen92.pdf?token=xNNU5tvArWeCOg/pTK9kI8wTlDY=">lenient</a> – and my own research has supported this.</p>
<h2>Slap on the wrist</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-01/WWF-UK%20Report%20-Sentencing%20wildlife%20trade%20offences%20in%20England%20and%20Wales.pdf">The research</a> I carried out on behalf of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) used analysis of previous sentences, interviews of prosecutors and an experts’ workshop. I found that sentencing in England and Wales for illegal wildlife trade is lenient and somewhat inconsistent. The most common sentence was a fine – usually £2,500 or less. </p>
<p>Where information on the value of an animal or product was available, this was often much less than the “market value” of the illegal items involved. My research also showed that when imprisonment was used, sentences tended to be significantly shorter than the maximum available.</p>
<p>These types of crimes, as well as impacting individual animals, also affect entire species and biodiversity. It can also lead to the introduction of invasive species and diseases, as well as causing legal and sustainable trade to suffer. It is also believed that some illegal wildlife trade is linked to <a href="http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/TOCTA_Report_2010_low_res.pdf">organised crime</a>. Clearly, when these types of cases do go to court, the impact of the crime should not just be assessed from “market value”.</p>
<h2>Tougher sentences</h2>
<p>Overall, in England and Wales, it seems clear that current sentencing is generally not aligned with the devastating impact these types of crimes can have. And as my research suggests, this is often because this type of crime is not viewed as seriously as it ought to be.</p>
<p>The UK courts are also often unfamiliar with these types of cases, which is why the WWF is pushing for the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/campaigns/elephant-campaign/penalties-for-wildlife-criminals-sentenced-in-england-and-wales-are-low-and-inconsistent-a7774396.html">introduction of sentencing guidelines</a> for such offences. This is important because guidelines are produced with the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2008.00546.x/full">aim</a> of increasing consistency and appropriateness of sentencing, through <a href="https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/how-sentences-are-worked-out/">setting out</a> how harm caused and offender culpability should be assessed, as well as highlighting relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.</p>
<p>The Scottish Sentencing Council has <a href="https://www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk/news-and-media/news/first-sentencing-guidelines-announced/">announced</a> it will introduce guidelines for wildlife offences. But the <a href="https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/">body</a> responsible for producing these for courts in England and Wales believes that international wildlife trade should be dealt with on a <a href="http://www.nwcu.police.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/House-of-Commons-EAC-Wildlife-Crime-Govt-Response-to-Committees-3rd-report-of-sessions-2012-13.pdf">case-by-case basis</a> – because there are so few. But this is exactly the reason why guidelines are needed. </p>
<p>Sentencing guidelines in England and Wales would result in more appropriate punishments for these terrible crimes. And this is more likely to deter potential offenders. Creating sentencing guidelines would also be a clear message to the rest of the world that the UK is doing its bit to address the devastating impact of the illegal wildlife trade.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85477/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melanie Flynn received funding from WWF-UK to carry out the research discussed here. </span></em></p>This multi-billion pound industry increasingly involves organised crime groups, who see wildlife as a low risk route to profit.Melanie Flynn, Senior lecturer in Criminology, University of HuddersfieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/711862017-01-18T11:39:32Z2017-01-18T11:39:32ZWhy China's ivory ban is a mammoth step towards saving the elephant<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152909/original/image-20170116-9055-1dkfh7b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ivory owner.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/ivory-547142518?src=rg-ezbTbSv2SDHoUXHcNig-1-0">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>At the end of last year, China <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38470861">announced a complete ban</a> on its ivory trade and processing activities by the end of 2017. The news, a late Christmas gift to many conservationists, was greeted as a “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/china-ivory-trade-ban-2017-game-changer-africa-elephant-wwf-a7503121.html">game changer</a>” by groups including the <a href="https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/wwf-uk-comments-todays-historic-announcement-china-will-close-down-its-domestic-ivory-trade">World Wildlife Fund</a>, which says around <a href="https://www.wwf.org.uk/wildlife/african-elephants">20,000 African elephants</a> are being killed every year for their ivory. As the world’s largest consumer of ivory products, Chinese demand has seen poaching increase and ivory prices rise. The country has had a seemingly insatiable appetite for so-called “white gold”. </p>
<p>At a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (<a href="https://www.cites.org">CITES</a>) last September, a resolution was tabled which recommended that its 183 member states “close their domestic markets for commercial trade in raw and worked ivory as a matter of urgency”. China’s support of the resolution surprised many and led to it being adopted by consensus. The country had taken a big step in re-evaluating its relationship with ivory and its effect on the world’s elephants.</p>
<p>The subsequent announcement on December 30 2016 saw China commit to closing up to 15 of its 34 ivory processing firms and 50 to 60 of its 130 licensed ivory retail shops by March 31 2017. The second stage will see China phase out the country’s remaining registered legal processors and traders by the end of the year. </p>
<p>China has a popular ivory carving industry with a history which stretches back to the <a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/50.145.74/">Ming</a> and Qing Dynasties. To assist those who carry out this work, there will be schemes to assist ivory carvers with the transition into working with other mediums. “Master carvers” will be encouraged to work in museums and in the repair and maintenance of artistic and culturally significant ivory artefacts. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EEHOdHUxNWE?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The Chinese move effectively brings to an end the future of the country’s domestic ivory market. But there are millions of pieces of (currently) legally owned ivory artefacts all over China which will have to be dealt with through a strict new management system. Ivory products will only be displayed in museums and art galleries for non-commercial purposes or exhibition and the giving and inheriting of ivory will still be allowed. </p>
<h2>The elephant in the sale</h2>
<p>More worryingly, the Chinese ban on trade specifically excludes items described as “genuine antiques”. This exemption raises concerns that elephants will continue to be poached to supply an increased trade in “ghost ivory” (illegal ivory sold as antique legal ivory) as the legitimate market closes. </p>
<p>Another problem is that a large portion of China’s ivory trade will simply shift to Hong Kong, which is not subject to the Chinese ban. Hong Kong is the world’s biggest legal retail market for elephant ivory and a major transit hub for illegal imports. Hong Kong has itself pledged to phase out its domestic ivory market by 2021 and it is hoped that the Chinese announcement will encourage Hong Kong to speed up the timescale. But there is no guarantee this will happen.</p>
<p>Concerns over the sale of “ghost ivory” alongside legitimate legal ivory pieces are even greater in Hong Kong. “Hong Kong ivory” has even come to be a derogatory term to describe new ivory masquerading as old. </p>
<p>This point was recently highlighted by British auctioneer James Lewis, who <a href="https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2016/auctioneers-bamfords-introduce-ban-on-solid-ivory/">said</a> of his experiences in Hong Kong:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You see old ivory on the same shelf as new ivory. I realised then there’s a major market in the Far East that looks at ivory as a commodity as well as an art form, and that the old ivory market is fuelling modern ivory demand.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But these concerns should not distract us from the positive aspects of China’s plans. In terms of addressing the decline in wild elephant populations and Asia’s attitudes to ivory, the Chinese ban can only be a good thing. Provided Beijing is able to police and manage the changes effectively it could even be the “game changer” conservationists hope for. </p>
<p>Just as importantly, the fact that China has gone so far and with such a strict time scale after years of negotiation could be the catalyst for other states such as Hong Kong, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam to follow suit. Demand for “white gold” has taken the elephant to the <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/03/06/173508369/elephant-poaching-pushes-species-to-brink-of-extinction">brink of extinction</a>. Chinese remorse could be the species’ salvation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71186/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Caroline Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The world's largest trader is closing down.Caroline Cox, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/638222016-08-21T20:03:53Z2016-08-21T20:03:53ZCan buying up fishing licences save Australia's sharks?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134255/original/image-20160816-13020-8imslj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scalloped hammerhead, a species that is listed as endanged by the International Union for Conservation of Nature</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Priest</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) recently raised over A$200,000 to buy shark fishing <a href="http://www.wwf.org.au/?17260/Whats-the-catch-Conservation-group-buys-commercial-shark-fishing-licence">licences in Queensland’s waters</a>. They estimate the licences, for operating nets in and around the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, could have been used to catch 10,000 sharks each year. </p>
<p>Retiring these licences is a new development in Australian shark conservation, but may also <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/world-wildlife-fund-buys-up-fishing-licences-to-protect-hammerhead-sharks-20160719-gq8zd0.html">limit locally caught seafood</a>. </p>
<p>But do Australia’s sharks need saving, or can we eat them? It depends on where you look.</p>
<h2>Sustainable sharks</h2>
<p>Sharks in general are much more vulnerable to overfishing than other fish. Compared to most fish, sharks have far fewer offspring over their lifetimes. As a result, shark populations cannot tolerate the same levels of fishing that fish can sustain. </p>
<p>Globally, there is great reason for concern over the status of sharks. About <a href="https://elifesciences.org/content/3/e00590">a quarter of all sharks and rays are threatened with extinction</a>. The high value of shark fins in Asian markets drives a large and often unsustainable shark fishery that reaches across the globe. </p>
<p>Australia has an important role to play in combating this trend. Many species that are globally threatened can find refuge in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which has an extensive system of protected areas and comparatively low fishing effort. Despite this potential safe haven, some species in Australia still rest on an ecological knife edge. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134589/original/image-20160818-12298-16q7yfr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A white-tip reef shark in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Christopher Brown</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, the <a href="http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39386/0">great</a> and <a href="http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39385/0">scalloped hammerheads</a> (which the WWF says will benefit from the licence purchase) are both by-catch species in the Australian fishery and are listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as endangered. </p>
<p>Australian fishermen don’t head out to catch hammerheads intentionally; most people do not consider the meat palatable. However, their hammer-shaped head is easily entangled in nets. Therefore hammerheads may be highly susceptible to any increase in fishing pressure. </p>
<p>Commercial fishers are legally required to have a licence. By buying the licences, WWF can limit the number of active nets in the water. </p>
<p>However, not all shark species are as vulnerable to fishing as the iconic hammerhead. Several shark species in Australia are well-managed. For instance, the spot tail shark is fast-growing and has many young, <a href="http://www.frdc.com.au/research/Final_reports/2010-006-DLD.pdf">making it relatively resilient to fishing pressure</a>. Many Australians regularly enjoy these species with a side of chips.</p>
<p>Species targeted by Queensland’s shark fishery are likely sustainable. The <a href="https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/monitoring-our-fisheries/data-reports/sustainability-reporting/stock-assessment-reports/stock-assessment-of-whaler-and-hammerhead-sharks-carcharhinidae-and-sphyrnidae-in-queensland">latest fishery assessment</a> published by the Queensland government in 2014 found that catches of most shark species were well within safe limits. </p>
<p>Supporting our local shark fisheries is therefore far better than importing shark from overseas where fisheries may be poorly managed. </p>
<p>But it is not all good news in Australia. Both the <a href="https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/monitoring-our-fisheries/data-reports/sustainability-reporting/stock-assessment-reports/stock-assessment-of-whaler-and-hammerhead-sharks-carcharhinidae-and-sphyrnidae-in-queensland">assessment</a> and an <a href="http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/5148/">independent</a> review found that while Queensland’s shark catch likely is sustainable, we need to be cautious about allowing any increases. </p>
<p>Importantly, Queensland’s 2014 shark assessment relies on very limited data. A crucial fishery observer program was cut in 2012. The limited data mean that regulations for Queensland’s shark catches are set conservatively low. Any increase in catch is risky without an assessment based on higher-quality data. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134591/original/image-20160818-12292-pt1cjb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists use tag-and-release programs to track the movements and population size of sharks. But more direct fisheries data are needed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Samantha Munroe</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A win for fishers and fish</h2>
<p>Buying up licences in an uncertain fishery may be an effective way to prevent the decline of vulnerable species. Although buying licences is a new move for marine conservation groups in Australia, elsewhere it has proven an effective strategy for conservation and fisheries. </p>
<p>For instance, in California the conservation group <a href="http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/california/howwework/central-coast-groundfish-project.xml">Nature Conservancy bought fishing licences for rockfish, some species of which are endangered</a>. </p>
<p>The Nature Conservancy now leases those licences back to fishers that promote sustainable fishing methods. The fishers themselves can charge a higher price for sustainable local catches of fish. What started as a move purely for conservation has had benefits for those employed in fisheries. </p>
<p>The lesson here is that conservation organisations can be the most productive when they work with, not against, fisheries. The recent shark licence purchase in Australia could be a great opportunity for fishers and conservation organisations to work together to maintain healthy ecosystems and fisheries. </p>
<p>But if Australians are serious about protecting sharks, there are other steps we still need to take. Queensland should reinstate the fishery observer program so we have reliable data to assess shark populations. For instance, currently we don’t know how many sharks are caught as by-catch in other fisheries. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134587/original/image-20160818-12292-n6dylk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A lemon shark seeks its fish prey in the shallow waters on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Lemon sharks are caught by our fisheries, but are not a target species.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Megan Saunders</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Shark control programs designed to protect bathers are also a threat to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-were-opposing-western-australias-shark-cull-scientists-28653">endangered shark populations</a>. However, data on deaths from shark control in Queensland were not accounted for in the government’s catch limits. </p>
<p>Accounting for these missing deaths could make a <a href="http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/5148/">serious dent in our sustainable catch, an independent review found</a>. </p>
<p>There is an opportunity to address these issues in Queensland’s upcoming fisheries management reform. Have your say <a href="https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/consultations-and-legislation/reviews-surveys-and-consultations/green-paper-on-fisheries-management-reform-in-queensland">here</a>.</p>
<p>If conservation groups can work with fisheries, a more consistent and sustainable shark-fishing strategy may emerge. Australians can continue to be proud of our efforts to protect marine life, but can still enjoy shark for dinner.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63822/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Brown receives funding from The Nature Conservancy and the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the Australian Marine Sciences Association and the Society for Conservation Biology. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samantha Munroe receives funding from the Save Our Seas Foundation and the Australian Research Council. She is also a member of the Oceania Chondrichthyan Society. </span></em></p>A recent shark licence buy-up in Australia is a great opportunity for fishers and conservation organisations to work together to maintain healthy ecosystems and fisheries.Christopher Brown, Research Fellow, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith UniversitySamantha Munroe, Postdoctoral research fellow, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/440072015-06-29T20:08:54Z2015-06-29T20:08:54ZAustralia's 'climate roundtable' could unite old foes and end the carbon deadlock<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86675/original/image-20150629-9081-6xo6is.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;rect=15%2C11%2C2629%2C1614&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Business, environmental, trade union and social groups all see advantages in looking beyond high-emission industries such as coal-fired power.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACSIRO_ScienceImage_9226_Eraring_Power_Station.jpg">Nick Pitsas/CSIRO/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Climate policy is in the media yet again, but this time it might be different. The <a href="http://climateinstitute.org.au/australian-climate-roundtable.html">set of policy principles</a> released by the <a href="http://www.australianclimateroundtable.org.au/">Australian Climate Roundtable</a> yesterday are extraordinary for two reasons. </p>
<p>First, the principles themselves offer some calm common sense in an arena that has been dominated by ferocious partisan politics and dramatic policy reversals. They could therefore offer a way to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/29/australian-climate-policy-paralysis-has-to-end-business-roundtable-says">break the current policy deadlock</a> and re-establish a bipartisan approach to climate change.</p>
<p>Second, the principles are the product of a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-29/australian-climate-roundtable-business-unions-policy-alliance/6579106">highly unusual alliance</a> of ten organisations, representing business, unions, environmentalists, and the community. It is unusual that such disparate groups can sit down together to talk, and downright extraordinary that they can agree on a common set of principles. So what is going on here?</p>
<h2>A principled approach to policy?</h2>
<p>On the first point, the principles state that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our overarching aim is for Australia to play its fair part in international efforts to achieve this while maintaining and increasing its prosperity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Roundtable’s ideal policy would lead to “deep reductions in Australia’s net emissions”, using policy instruments that are well targeted, well designed, based on sound risk assessments, internationally linked, operate at least cost, and are efficient.</p>
<p>On the environmental side, there is a demand for net zero emissions in the long run, an acceptance that there are market failures that need to be fixed, and a call for long-term planning based on climate change scenarios.</p>
<p>On the economic side, there are statements about achieving reductions at the lowest cost, avoiding regulatory burdens, ensuring no loss of competitiveness for trade-exposed industries, and the need for a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy, without undue shocks for investors.</p>
<p>Finally, on the social side are concerns about providing decent work opportunities, protecting the most vulnerable people, and helping communities to make the necessary transition.</p>
<p>While there is apparently something here for everyone, the contentious issues are avoided. There is no mention of the government’s Direct Action <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a>, the former government’s <a href="http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CC8QFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acci.asn.au%2FFiles%2FGovernment-Carbon-Tax-Plan&amp;ei=xMWQVd_pDIa7mQWZ743gCQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNGxrjjKVMKvRHZ4PKUl5SXIzlwHQA&amp;sig2=-bNkkOJ_WxNIayZBHgxj6w&amp;bvm=bv.96783405,d.dGY&amp;cad=rja">price on carbon</a>, or the recently reduced <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/renewable-energy-target-scheme">Renewable Energy Target</a>. This is clever politics, as it allows for the establishment of a broad consensus without the need to quibble over policy detail. </p>
<h2>An unlikely alliance</h2>
<p>The roundtable’s membership is remarkably diverse: the <a href="http://aluminium.org.au/">Australian Aluminium Council</a>; the <a href="http://www.bca.com.au/">Business Council of Australia</a>; the <a href="http://www.aigroup.com.au/">Australian Industry Group</a>; the <a href="http://www.esaa.com.au/">Energy Supply Association of Australia</a>; the <a href="http://www.igcc.org.au/">Investor Group on Climate Change</a>; the <a href="http://www.climateinstitute.org.au">Climate Institute</a>; <a href="http://www.wwf.org.au/">WWF Australia</a>; the <a href="http://www.acfonline.org.au/">Australian Conservation Foundation</a>; the <a href="http://www.actu.org.au/">Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)</a>; and the <a href="http://www.acoss.org.au/">Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS)</a>. How and why did these disparate groups form such an alliance?</p>
<p>It is clear from the principles themselves that all the member groups want some policy consistency that will survive regardless of who is in government. The last thing they want is for the recent cycle of major policy changes to continue. </p>
<p>Such reversals impose waves of new compliance costs on industry and create uncertainty for investors, which is why business is so heavily represented in the Roundtable. Policy changes also make it difficult to consolidate significant emissions reductions, which is where the environmentalists come in. Finally, policy uncertainty has implications for employment options and the cost of living, which is why the ACTU and ACOSS are also on board. </p>
<p>There are also some specific strategic advantages to being involved in the Roundtable for each of the participants. </p>
<p>Business groups that have been getting bad publicity about their contributions to climate change might use the Roundtable to improve their image and frame the future policy debate in a way that suits them (for instance, by calling for a strong focus on costs and competitiveness). </p>
<p>Environmentalists, who have effectively been sidelined by the Abbott government on climate change, might see this is a way to deal themselves back into the policy game and make some progress in reducing emissions.</p>
<p>Unions concerned about their members’ future employment might see this as a way to manage the transition by creating new “green-collar” jobs that will offset the loss of employment opportunities in the older polluting industries.</p>
<p>Finally, ACOSS is clearly worried about the impact of climate polices on low-income households, and being part of the Roundtable ensures that their concerns are heard.</p>
<h2>A precedent for influencing policy?</h2>
<p>While unusual, alliances such as the Australian Climate Roundtable are not unknown in Australian environmental policy. Sometimes they have led to the creation of effective long-term polices; other times they have fizzled out, leaving little more than rhetoric.</p>
<p>One positive example is that of <a href="http://www.nrm.gov.au/">Landcare</a>. In 1989 the Australian Conservation Foundation and the National Farmers’ Federation proposed a grant scheme that would empower communities to rehabilitate their local environment. More than a quarter of century later, Landcare is still going strong with the support of all four leading political parties.</p>
<p>On the negative side, an extensive consultation process involving all levels of government, business, unions and environmentalists led to the creation of the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/national-esd-strategy">National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development</a> in 1992. It is still on the books and referred to by <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc">current legislation</a>, yet we don’t appear to be much closer to sustainability.</p>
<p>So will this be a Landcare moment or not? Only time will tell.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44007/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Howes received funding from the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility 2012-13.</span></em></p>The Australian Climate Roundtable unites business, environmental and social groups in calling for a strong climate policy. This unprecedented show of unity might even break down Canberra's climate stalemate.Michael Howes, Associate Professor, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/409522015-04-29T01:47:58Z2015-04-29T01:47:58ZWWF fires a warning shot over Australia's land-clearing record<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79671/original/image-20150429-7111-1rcdf28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eastern Australia&#39;s forests could be a hotspot for deforestation in the future - just like these forests in south east Asia. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">William Laurance</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When we think about global deforestation, certain hotspots spring to mind. The Amazon. The Congo. Borneo and Sumatra. And… eastern Australia? </p>
<p>Yes, eastern Australia is one of 11 regions highlighted in a new chapter of the <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/conservation/forests/publications/living_forests_report/">WWF Living Forests report</a>, “Saving forests at risk”, which identifies the world’s greatest deforestation fronts – where forests are most at risk – between now and 2030.</p>
<p>The report uses projections of recent rates of forest loss to estimate how much we are on track to lose over the next 15 years. The estimates for eastern Australia range from 3 million to 6 million hectares. In particular, it points the finger of blame at recent and foreshadowed changes to environmental legislation. These changes have already removed protections for well over <a href="http://www.wwf.org.au/?6800/bushland-at-risk-of-renewed-clearing-in-queensland">a million hectares of Queensland’s native vegetation</a>.</p>
<p>The WWF scenario is, of course, just a projection. This future need not come to pass. We can decide whether or not it happens. And it turns out that Australia has already formulated an alternative vision of the future. This vision contrasts starkly with the gloomy projections in WWF’s report.</p>
<h2>Rhetoric in the right direction</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/land/publications/australias-native-vegetation-framework">Australia’s Native Vegetation Framework</a>, endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2012, has five goals. Goal 1 is to “Increase the national extent and connectivity of native vegetation” – and according to the framework, we’ll do it by 2020. This turns out to be exactly what WWF is proposing: a goal of “Zero Net Deforestation and Forest Degradation” by 2020.</p>
<p>This seems perfectly aligned with Australia’s vision. So why is WWF putting Australia in the naughty corner?</p>
<p>Well, we are not yet practising what we preach. Australia’s rate of vegetation clearing still dwarfs our efforts to replant and restore bushland by much more than 100,000 hectares every year. This is mostly driven by vegetation loss in Queensland. And although these rates of loss were, until recently, slowing, recent reports suggest they have rebounded sharply. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://theconversation.com/land-clearing-in-queensland-triples-after-policy-ping-pong-38279">recent article</a> on The Conversation, we wrote of the alarming figures suggesting large increases in land clearing, which coincided with the changes to vegetation protections under the former Newman Government in Queensland. The state’s new Labor government is currently considering whether or not to revoke these changes. There have been <a href="http://www.qt.com.au/news/take-the-politics-out-of-policy-byrne/2594139/">suggestions</a> that they may not reinstate the previous protections for native vegetation. </p>
<p>So to comply with our own national strategy, we have less than five years to turn around significant net deforestation, and actually start restoring more native vegetation than we clear - but the trend is in the wrong direction.</p>
<h2>Land clearing the greatest threat</h2>
<p>Australia’s Native Vegetation Framework recognises unambiguously the importance of native vegetation. It represents a clear, government-endorsed statement that halting the loss of native bushland cover is pivotal to sound environmental management.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79667/original/image-20150429-7111-1t5xans.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79667/original/image-20150429-7111-1t5xans.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Black-throated finches (here in captivity) are threatened by land clearing for development in Queensland.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poephila_cincta_-Baltimore_Aquarium,_Baltimore,_Maryland,_USA-8a.jpg">Chris Williamson/Wikipedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Land clearing is the greatest current threat to Australia’s biodiversity, and is also a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, degradation and reduced water quality in waterways and estuaries, and dryland salinity.</p>
<p>For wildlife, land clearing means smaller and more fragmented populations, and such populations are more vulnerable to extinction. This is basic ecology. As habitat is lost, animals don’t simply move elsewhere or fly away. This solution <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-01/mine-benefits-outweigh-green-fears-palmer-says/3705808">was suggested</a> in response to the impending loss of endangered black-throated finch habitat in Bimblebox Nature Refuge in Queensland as it is <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-we-offset-biodiversity-losses-13805">converted to a mine</a>. </p>
<p>But where would the finches fly to? If there is other habitat left that is suitable, then chances are it’s already got its fill of finches. Simply put, less finch habitat equals fewer finches.</p>
<p>Even regrowth forest is critically important for many species. The iconic Brigalow woodlands of southeast Queensland can only be removed from the endangered list by protecting younger, regrowing stands. </p>
<p>But if allowed to mature for more than 30 years, these stands <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320709003711">support bird species</a> similar to those of remnant brigalow that has never been cleared. The <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320713001687">abundance of native reptiles is also boosted</a> by allowing brigalow regrowth to mature. In the most overcleared landscapes, regrowth vegetation contributes to the critical functions of maintaining soil integrity and even buffering against drought.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79664/original/image-20150429-7069-wzlr2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79664/original/image-20150429-7069-wzlr2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The bridled nail-tailed wallaby is one of the endangered inhabitants of Queensland’s threatened brigalow woodlands.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/berniedup/10000480174">Bernard DUPONT/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Time to choose our future</h2>
<p>Most of the nations highlighted in the WWF report, such as Papua New Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo, are in a starkly different economic situation to Australia. At least some deforestation will be an inevitable part of their economic and social development. </p>
<p>Arguably, it is the responsibility of wealthier countries to help such nations to follow more-sustainable development pathways—though we will face <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/roads-to-ruin.html?_r=2">many challenges in doing so</a>. But should Australia, as a wealthy, developed economy, continue to rely on deforestation for our own development, <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-talks-the-talk-but-will-it-walk-the-walk-to-save-rainforests-34145">we can hardly ask differently of others</a>. </p>
<p>It is time to think about the end-game of land clearing in Australia, and what we are willing lose along the way. If we genuinely want to achieve a reversal of deforestation by 2020, then we need to see significant policy changes. And they need to happen now—sooner rather than later.</p>
<p>So which future for us? Will we choose the path endorsed by Australia’s Native Vegetation Strategy, with the tradeoffs it requires, but also the lasting rewards it will bring? </p>
<p>Or will we sacrifice environmental sustainability for short-term gains, as underscored in the alarming projections of the WWF report? These are vital decisions with starkly different futures, and we can only hope that our state and federal governments make the right choices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40952/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martine Maron receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Environmental Science Program, and State government sources. She is a director of BirdLife Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bill Laurance receives funding from the Australian Research Council and other scientific and philanthropic organisations. He is the director of the Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science at James Cook University and founder and director of ALERT--the Alliance of Leading Environmental Researchers &amp; Thinkers (<a href="http://www.alert-conservation.org">www.alert-conservation.org</a>). </span></em></p>A new WWF report highlights Australia as a hotspot for future deforestation. Australia talks the talk on deforestation, but will it walk the walk?Martine Maron, Associate Professor of Environmental Management, The University of QueenslandBill Laurance, Distinguished Research Professor and Australian Laureate, James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/263102014-05-05T20:35:30Z2014-05-05T20:35:30ZBen & Jerry's reef campaign shows that green groups are vital for democracy
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/47813/original/32b5qppq-1399272414.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Queensland government has called for a boycott of Ben &amp; Jerry&#39;s ice cream over their support for WWF&#39;s save the reef campaign. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/avlxyz/5311193202">Alpha/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>US-based ice cream company Ben &amp; Jerry’s recently caused a stir by siding with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Australian Marine Conservation Society’s <a href="http://fightforthereef.org.au">Fight for the Reef</a> campaign. </p>
<p>Queensland environment minister Andrew Powell suggested that Ben &amp; Jerry’s signed on to WWF propaganda and <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/ben-and-jerrys-ice-cream-hurting-reef-qld-govt-20140429-37eg7.html">urged Australians to boycott the company</a>. But environmental non-government organisations (ENGOs) and their campaigns play a vital role in healthy democracy. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the federal government is planning to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/companies-to-get-protection-from-activists-boycotts/story-fn59niix-1226724817535">alter Section 45DD of the Competition and Consumer Act</a> so that environmental organisations and community organisations can no longer implement secondary boycotts as a protest strategy. Perhaps the Queensland government missed the memo. </p>
<p>While not strictly a secondary boycott – perhaps a “govcott”? - Powell has called on Australians to say “No!” to <a href="http://www.benandjerry.com.au">Ben &amp; Jerry’s</a> ice cream. The Queensland government has since <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/lnp-refers-ice-cream-company-ben-and-jerrys-to-accc-over-barrier-reef-campaign/story-fnihsps3-1226901781884">referred the company</a> to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.</p>
<h2>Government and mining under attack</h2>
<p>Powell accuses Ben &amp; Jerry’s of threatening the reputation of the reef and consequently tourism dollars and jobs. In his estimation, these doyens of the ice cream world are victims of WWF propaganda.</p>
<p>In 2013, Fight for the Reef ran a series of campaign ads featuring Bob Irwin. Could we infer some QLD government criticism of Bob Irwin? Now there’s a political gamble not worth taking. It might be viewed as a strategic PR move on the part of the Queensland government to confine its criticisms to the WWF.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, in the same week, Queensland Resources Council (QRC), the peak industry body for mining, minerals and resources launched their own <a href="https://www.qrc.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=3428">TV campaign</a> refuting claims, presumably from the “Fight for the Reef” Campaign, that the GBR is under threat from development proposals. The council may have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/great-barrier-reef-facts-tv-ads-ignore-dredge-dumping-risks-25899">stretching the truth</a> in some of its claims. </p>
<p>It is developing into a rather strange merry-go-round, in which the Queensland government and the QRC claim the state is under attack from ENGOs and ice-cream makers, who in turn argue that the reef is being attacked by government and industry. The claim and counterclaim don’t stop there, though.</p>
<h2>Green thuggery?</h2>
<p>WWF and Greenpeace have been <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/green-thuggery-is-holding-agribusiness-to-ransom/story-e6frg6zo-1226892624926">accused of “thuggery”</a> towards the beef industry, in seeking to hold farmers to account in their dealings with major buyers such as McDonalds.</p>
<p>Historically, WWF and other international ENGOs are effective means to bring local environmental disputes to international attention – and new communications technology and social media have brought substantial benefits to their campaigns.</p>
<p>Ironically enough given the Queensland government’s stance, boycotts have been hailed as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/boycotts-are-a-crucial-weapon-to-fight-environment-harming-firms-25267">crucial weapon</a> for environmental campaigners.</p>
<p>In the case of the Great Barrier Reef too, ENGO power is amplified by the willingness of the World Heritage Committee to consider their submissions and protests.</p>
<p>Indeed the most recent statement from the World Heritage Committee — which paves a way for the GBR to be confirmed as a World Heritage Site in Danger in 2015 — cites the WWF /AMCS or Fight for the Reef submission at numerous points. And then there’s the ice-cream…</p>
<h2>Protest goes global</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.uq.edu.au/mia/2014-issues#150">Recent work</a> by UTAS Professor Libby Lester investigating Japan’s 2012 withdrawal from Tasmanian Forest Industry products and in particular, from exporter Ta Ann Tasmania has some parallels here and is instructive if not prophetic.</p>
<p>Lester concludes that Tasmanian governments and the forest industry failed to recognise the legitimacy, and underestimated the influence of a “transnational community of concern”.</p>
<p>In the context of transnational communities of concern and international ENGOs, Australian government proposals to ban secondary boycotts look anachronistic, while the Queensland government’s stance against Ben &amp; Jerry’s comes off as parochial.</p>
<p>We are now in an era of international protests in response to global environmental crises — occurring within a global system of market capitalism where reputation matters. </p>
<p>So appeals to nationalism, jobs and the domestic economy in defence of developments within the GBR World Heritage Area to assist the non-renewable resources industry will fail to appease international ENGOs and the wider international community. And that really could hurt the tourism industry.</p>
<p>Nobody wants to be the company which is killing the proverbial orang utan. And in an era of global capital and competitive markets, the edge may well be distance or boycotting developments which do not support a “green progressive” corporate image.</p>
<p>Just ask Australia’s major banks, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-28/leading-banks-accused-of-financing-unethical-companies3a-oxfam/5414114">recently accused</a> by Oxfam of banking on “shaky ground”, investing in companies where land had been acquired illegally or improperly.</p>
<p>In failing to grasp this bigger picture, Queensland is currently failing to see the reef for the coral.</p>
<h2>Changing boycott laws dangerous for democracy</h2>
<p>Regardless of their relevance though, efforts by governments to limit the strategies of ENGOs is dangerous ground for democracy.</p>
<p>While we can accept that ENGOs like the WWF may be characterised as “corporate” in their structure and operation and so subject to corporate law, they are also an organised and powerful forum for civil society participation. A healthy robust democracy is dependent upon civil society – a plural category where debate and contention are inevitable.</p>
<p>This does not mean that these international ENGOs should be without criticism. But given their proximity to civil society, should caution against legislated changes to limit their freedom to protest, to challenge and to question. Indeed, research evidence points out that ENGOs have had a very positive effect on industrial and regulatory innovation that has greatly improved environmental outcomes</p>
<p>At any rate, secondary boycott bans are unlikely to produce any silencing of ENGOs, rather as evidenced in the Tasmanian case, more likely to amplify international protest.</p>
<p>And it would seem that these international forums – be it the World Heritage Committee or the international reach of the WWF – are emerging as the most effective pressure points for global industry and markets, including tourism markets.</p>
<p>In Queensland, you could say that the whole World Wildlife Fund is watching.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26310/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>US-based ice cream company Ben &amp; Jerry’s recently caused a stir by siding with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Australian Marine Conservation Society’s Fight for the Reef campaign. Queensland environment…Kerrie Foxwell-Norton, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities, Griffith UniversityMarcus Lane, Dean (Academic) Arts, Education and Law, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/187252013-10-29T06:25:02Z2013-10-29T06:25:02ZTigers, elephants ask: what have royals ever done for us?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33940/original/74szywvq-1382982209.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Royal interest in tigers has cut both ways through the years.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">S. Taheri</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On the face of it the British royal family’s commitment to wildlife conservation is unmistakable.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most well-known work is that of Prince Charles, who in May co-hosted a meeting on <a href="http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/speeches/speech-the-prince-of-wales-the-illegal-wildlife-trade-conference">illegal wildlife trade</a>, just one of many of his endeavours that include high level activities on rainforests and considerable work in Britain.</p>
<p>Both his father Prince Philip, who <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/borneo_forests/about_borneo_forests/borneo_prince_phillip.cfm">co-founded the WWF</a>, and his son Prince William (now the Duke of Cambridge), are actively involved in global conservation. Indeed Prince William <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/12/prince-william-leaves-raf-charity-work">recently retired</a> from his role as a RAF helicopter pilot to focus on his charity work, launching the <a href="http://www.unitedforwildlife.com/">United for Wildlife</a> conservation alliance.</p>
<p>Less well known is that Princess Michael of Kent <a href="http://www.princessmichael.org.uk/charities/animals-wildlife/">is a patron</a> of the <a href="http://www.georgeadamson.org/">George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust</a>, Mark Shand (the brother of Camilla Parker-Bowles, Prince Charles’ wife) <a href="http://www.elephantfamily.org/what-we-do/conservation-news/founder-mark-shand-returns-to-where-it-all-began/">set up</a> the charity <a href="http://www.elephantfamily.org/">Elephant Family</a>, and Prince Andrew has visited game reservation areas in Tanzania.</p>
<p>But their work is far more than just supporting and establishing charitable activities. What the royal family has done historically and continues to do for conservation in Britain is to drive a particular vision of what conservation should be, an influence that continues to this day.</p>
<p>We need to be careful. Any conservation vision is also inherently a social vision. Any battle for wildlife is a battle fought between people, which means people as well as animals will be among the casualties. The royal family is no stranger to these dilemmas and has found itself embroiled in controversy in the past. For example, when a WWF helicopter donated by Prince Philip was used in a shoot-to-kill anti-poaching operation in <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/302">Sapi</a> safari area in Zimbabwe in the 1980s. The helicopter was quickly withdrawn, but left a PR disaster for the WWF and its royal benefactors.</p>
<p>This is one of the problems of conservation visions, particularly in those overseas issues with which the royal family is associated. On the one hand, it can gloss over the power relations and responsibilities entailed when Britons take an interest in overseas conservation.</p>
<p>For example, as <a href="http://www.tusk.org/royal-patron-of-the-tusk-trust.asp">patron of the Tusk Trust</a> Prince William said last year, “Africa’s natural heritage is the world’s natural heritage. We have to preserve places like this… not just for us, but for future generations.” Preserving African landscapes for “us” essentially meant wealthy Britons, for they were the audience. But whose lands are they? If they are part of the world’s heritage, then who in the world gave the Prince William the responsibility to lead conservation efforts? This is the sort of thinking which raises hackles and leads to phrases like “new imperialism”.</p>
<p>On the other hand it can promote particular ideas of what Africa should look like, and where wilderness should be, that obscures the complex, messy politics behind the practicalities of conservation. </p>
<p><figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33936/original/3kgv7m2f-1382980255.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The future King Edward VIII at a tiger shoot in Nepal during his Indian tour of 1921.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure></p>
<p>Work with wildlife charities is a mark of respectability, like working with children’s charities or supporting a hospital. It seems apolitical and is unlikely to ruffle any government feathers. Who could argue with wanting to save the elephants or tigers? Well, the national park in Tanzania that Princess Michael of Kent’s charity supports was cleared of several thousand residents by an <a href="http://environmentalismandconservation.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/nomadic-peoples-1999.pdf">illegally conducted eviction</a> – but you would be hard put to find details of that from the organisation involved. And the reserve that Prince Andrew visited (a hunting preserve) has since been at the centre of an only <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/30/maasai-game-hunting-tanzania">recently resolved dispute</a> over evicting thousands more pastoralists.</p>
<p>Let us not forget the royal family is privileged. It moves in privileged circles - indeed, it sits among the pinnacle of the global elite. And ever since William the Conqueror set aside one third of England as personal hunting preserves, conservation has been deeply implicated in the defence of privilege. While the British monarchy and others have been central to the spread of conservation, it is based on elite privilege, exclusion, dispossession and separation of humans from their environment.</p>
<p>Our point here is not that the elite’s interactions with nature are somehow unsavoury, even though it may involve a certain amount of hunting. But while the British public were upset that Prince Philip shot a tiger shortly after founding the WWF, and while the Spanish public were furious that their king <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17752983">went hunting elephants</a> as they struggled with economic woes, there was very little adverse impact to wildlife (besides the trophy victims).</p>
<p>The point is rather that royalty more often draws attention, bringing a certain amount of glamour and excitement to particular experiences of nature. In the 1920s, the East African safaris of the future kings Edward VIII and George VI helped mould the expectations of what such trips should be like. Royal support causes Britons to notice and listen, and many will do so less critically than they might otherwise.</p>
<p>Fortunately, our royal family is, at its core, public-spirited. By this we mean that one of its goals is undoubtedly a society which is more alive to conservation issues. And this ultimately will entail moving away from elitist, white, wealthy people that engage in external interventions in countries and communities far distant from their headquarters. It means a move to more local and grassroots conservation organisations instead, and a recognition that this a fight to shape and determine the terms of the debate, <em>a war of position</em> as the Italian intellectual <a href="http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/">Gramsci</a> would put it, as much as a battle.</p>
<p><em>Following the launch of Prince William’s new conservation charity United for Wildlife, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/24623773">BBC Nature examines</a> which animals already receive a degree of royal protection</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18725/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosaleen Duffy receives funding from ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Brockington receives funding from the ESRC.
</span></em></p>On the face of it the British royal family’s commitment to wildlife conservation is unmistakable. Perhaps the most well-known work is that of Prince Charles, who in May co-hosted a meeting on illegal wildlife…Rosaleen Duffy, Professor of Conservation Politics, University of KentDan Brockington, Professor in Conservation and Development, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.